Category Archives: G20 posts, resources, and other sites

On May 16, 2012, Toronto’s Chief Bill Blair met with journalists to comment on the Ontario Independent Police Review Director’s report, Policing the Right to Protest, released earlier that day. The report investigated complaints and made findings into the conduct of the Toronto police during the 2010 G20. (You can see earlier postings on this topic here and here.)

The Chief’s response, in my opinion, avoided responsibility, was at times evasive, at times unresponsive, and occasionally misleading. Over the next few days, I will look at some of these problematic statements. (One glaring problem a day, more or less)

Avoiding responsibility: the OIPRD report just expresses an “opinion.”

The OIPRD investigators painstakingly reviewed hundreds of hours worth of evidence (police officers’ notes, videos, photographs, interviews, and so on) before coming to the conclusion that during the G20, police officers did violate citizens’ individual and civil rights and liberties and also that excessive force was used on a number of occasions.

Despite the abundance of video footage (for example, the videos that show hundreds of innocent protestors and by-standers under siege by the police for several hours at Queen and Spadina), and personal accounts that confirm, with certainty, that people’s rights were violated, Chief Blair calls the report’s conclusion on this issue merely an “opinion.”

Chief Blair was asked by one journalist whether or not he accepts to rejects the report’s finding that people’s rights were trampled on by police officers (at 17:03 in the video, below). To this, the Chief responds,

“Well, I think that it certainly requires a hearing. And generally, I think overwhelmingly, the rights of our citizens were protected that weekend. There are individual instances where the OIPRD has said that some things, some individual conduct, may have been a violation of rights. I think that needs to be heard, in a hearing. Evidence, not opinion, but evidence needs to be brought forward. And it needs to be brought forward in a hearing according to the rule of law and due process.”

True enough that when the OIPRD refers a matter to the Chief, a hearing under the Police Services Act needs to be conducted before a finding can be made, under that Act, against a police officer. And yes, the OIPRD’s investigative conclusions are based on a “reasonable belief.” But to call the OIPRD’s finding that rights were violated during the G20 an “opinion,” and then to imply that, therefore, one cannot conclude that rights were violated on a large-scale, is a mark of denial, evasion, or of eschewing responsibility. The Chief’s refusal to admit as fact that citizens’ rights were violated, often at-large, and his declaration that the findings in the report merely express an “opinion,” confirm that he continues to deflect and avoid responsibility.

To many, Chief Blair’s reaction does not come at a surprise, but reflects a continuing sad state of affairs.

The Chief has said that he is committed to “learning lessons” for the future. Before he can learn anything, though, he must be willing to call things by their correct names. Until the Chief (and indeed, our political leaders) are willing to call police conduct during the G20 what it was: improper, excessive, shameful, frightening, and unlawful, we are not going to be learning any lessons for the future.

After a lengthy investigation, the Ontario Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD), Ontario’s civilian body responsible for handling complaints against the police, has concluded that police officers unlawfully jumped on, kicked, beat, shoved, threatened, mocked, and broke the nose of Adam Nobody while apparently affecting an arrest during the 2010 G8/G20 events in Toronto. In a report released on Friday, January 20th, the OIPRD asserts that the use of such force was excessive and discreditable conduct, and recommends that the officers involved face disciplinary hearings.[i]

But the OIPRD’s report and recommendation come more than six months after the organization retained the file, which means that the officers involved will not automatically face a disciplinary hearing—the Toronto Police Services Board, the civilian oversight body for the Toronto Police, must effectively approve that such a hearing be held.

And what is the response of the police union to the recommendation that the officers who beat a handcuffed and sometimes unconscious Nobody face disciplinary hearings? “We stand behind them,” said Toronto Police Union President Mike McCormack.[ii] He has urged the Police Services Board not to hold disciplinary hearings against the officers, citing the 6 month delay.

It is no surprise that officers take advantage of every tool provided by the law. But given that it is the police’s job to ensure that people who commit unlawful acts actually face the consequences of their actions and are held accountable under the law, we are justified in asking, “Why is it that when the police commit unlawful acts, the union demands that we let it go?” We might be excused for reacting indignantly to the union’s stance—a stance which seeks to put police officers above the law.

And what can we expect from the Police Services Board? It’s the Board that now has the power to decide whether a notice of hearing can be served on the officers in question. In effect, without the Board’s approval, there will be no hearing. The Police Services Act states that, in order to grant its approval, the Board must be of the opinion that “under the circumstances,” it was reasonable to delay serving the notice of hearing. [iii]

Surely the circumstances do exist here. The case is one that involves important public policy issues dealing with the public’s right to protest, policing such protests, police tactics, and police officers’ beliefs in how citizens who, in their opinion, have broken the law, can be treated.

Furthermore, the volume of evidence that the OIPRD investigators had to sift through was high- significantly more than evidence from the run-of-the mill complaints that make their way to the OIPRD. The OIPRD interviewed the complainant, interviewed or read reports from 5 other civilian witnesses, 12 police officer witnesses, and the 8 respondent police officers. It reviewed audio and video evidence, four “volumes” of information from the Special Investigations Unit, the notebook entries of the police officers, and numerous other pieces of evidence. This voluminous amount of evidence surely justifies a longer investigation period.

Finally, as the report makes no reference to the topic, we do not know if some of the “delay” during the investigation resulted from the slow or reluctant co-operation of the police witnesses, themselves.

When the legislature set out the limitation period it was likely contemplating the more common and straight-forward cases of complaints against one or two police officers. It is unlikely that the legislature intended a 6-month limitation to apply to cases where many police officers, under an atmosphere of confusion and “mayhem,” as some witnesses described, were the subject of complaints.

In essence, the limitation period ensures that investigations are conducted efficiently and do not drag on indefinitely. There is no blanket rule preventing investigations from continuing beyond the 6-month period. Under the circumstances, the OIPRD’s report has been produced in a timely manner. But union President Mike McCormack wants the TPSB to rule otherwise.

McCormack’s position is offensive. It demands that police officers who have engaged in illegal (and arguably, criminal) acts not be held professionally accountable for their conduct. It perpetuates the negative and justified public perception that police officers protect one another no matter how egregious the acts of their members may have been. The union’s position undermines the credibility of the police and the public’s trust and confidence in the police force. In the end, though, the law allows McCormack to voice his opinion, but the same law grants the Police Services Board the power to approve that the hearings be held.

So what should we do? How should citizens who want to ensure that the police conduct their job honourably and without resorting to unnecessary violence react? Can we do anything to prevent the further erosion of the public’s confidence in the police? Can we ensure that the Police Services Board grants its approval for the hearings?

Yes. In this case, there is tangible, simple and effective action that we can all take. We must let the T.P.S.B. and, in particular the three Toronto City Councillors who serve on the T.P.S.B., know that the officers who abused their power in their dealings with Mr. Nobody must be held accountable.[iv] At the very least, they should face a disciplinary hearing. Write to the Board and to the City Councillors and ask that they use their discretion to hold the police officers accountable for their actions, and not to protect officers who grossly abuse their powers. And then, if and when the T.P.S.B. does approve that the hearings be held, follow up to ensure that the disciplinary hearings lead to meaningful consequences.

Demand that our law enforcement agents abide by the laws that they enforce.

No, we cannot foretell the fates of Egyptian, Tunisian, Iranian, and Yemenite people and their governments. But we do know that the mass demonstrations in these countries mark a monumental shift in the histories of their nations. In my mind, there is little doubt that, ultimately, things will get better- even if they initially get worse.

This is so because when people peacefully band together to achieve positive change, that change will eventually arrive. The power of the collective, united human spirit to guide its destiny toward greater equality, democracy, and justice can be temporarily impeded, but it cannot be forever beaten.

But what do demonstrations in oppressive regimes where public gatherings are usually met with the fatal force of the military or police have to do with us in Canada? Plenty. These events teach the skeptics among us two things: first, protests do change the course of history; second, we must resolutely defend our right to protest peacefully.

Recall just a few months ago when critics derided Toronto’s G20 protestors for trying to effect change through demonstrations. “Protests achieve nothing,” they jeered. “If you go out and protest, then you’ve got to accept the risk that the police may beat you or arrest you, so quit complaining.” These detractors had no sympathy for the cause or the fate of the protestors.

Even once image after image, account after account, revealed shocking police abuse of power during the G20, these critics seemed to regard the incidents as excusable exceptions. The entire country should have been on the verge of revolt, so to speak, at least to denounce the actions of the police and the complacency of our government. Yet none of that happened. The apathetic sentiment continued, “Why bother protesting?” “Protests may be a necessary ‘evil’ in dictatorships or in countries where people have no other means of participating in government, but they are a waste of time and unworthy of protection in Canada.”

In other words, while oppressed people are justified in demonstrating against state tyranny, people living in democracies should not indulge in such vulgarities. Or, if they do protest, they should accept a little police brutality.

These conclusions run counter to our democratic principles.

The right of individuals and groups to voice their opinions directly, openly, and through the most basic method of participation in demonstrations is a fundamental element of democracy, is essential for its survival and instrumental to both attaining and promoting it.

Without people’s desire to participate, democracy is rendered meaningless.

Demonstrations are particularly important in capitalist democracies because they give voice to disenfranchised members of society, allowing them to partake in democracy alongside the more powerful in a manner that is more accessible than making submissions to Parliament or writing policy papers. No other form of democratic participation offers this crucial benefit.

Demonstrations give people a sense of belonging and solidarity, which helps to strengthen their resolve and determination to make change.

When properly conducted and properly reported in the media, demonstrations grant visibility and exposure to issues that are otherwise ignored.

Specifically, the annual demonstrations during the G8/G20 summits send a message to leaders about the priorities of large segments of society: focus on the environment; don’t abandon the poor; reinforce Aboriginal rights; stop corporations from committing or enabling human rights violations in other countries which we would not tolerate in our own democracies.

If Canadians and Americans, or, for that matter, Egyptians and Iranians avoid protests for fear of being arrested, assaulted, detained and threatened by the state, or for the pessimistic view that nothing will change, then, indeed, nothing will change. Democracy will never be attained nor, once attained, will it survive without people’s ability and desire to participate directly in their own governance.

Martin Luther King Jr. said, “There is more power in socially organized masses on the march than there is in guns in the hands of a few desperate men.” That conviction holds as true now as it did sixty years ago.

Of course, it is perhaps for all these same reasons that so many people, the police, and the state often fear and attempt to curtail demonstrations.

It is, therefore, never more important to protect our democratic rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom from unlawful and abusive police (state) interference with our rights than when people voice dissent and try to participate, peacefully, in democracy. To punish them for their participation is an attack against democracy. If we reserve demonstrations only for dictatorships, we in the free world will surely lose our own liberty.

Every Canadian must defend and value our right to protest peacefully. We owe it to our fellow human beings in the Middle East. And our democracy depends on it.

It’s been said that most people’s view of what went wrong during the G20 depends on what images s/he was first exposed to during the summit weekend and thereafter. So, for most people, if the first images one saw of the protests was that of burning police cars and property-damaging “protesters,” then that person would be more likely to be sympathetic to the police and would find police actions of detaining hundreds of innocent persons justifiable. However, if the first images that a person saw were those of innocent protesters or by-standers scared and trapped in police kettling or being roughed up by the police, then that person would likely be critical of police actions.

I believe that most people can be more rational and reasonable than that. I hope that most people, when faced with a more comprehensive report of the events, will open their minds and modify their views.

To further our understanding of that weekend, I provide you with a list of what I believe are the must-see videos relating to that weekend. For those who somehow also missed the infinitely played videos of burning police cars, I will provide those links, too (though I ask you to consider why the police, who had planned for months for this summit and had, according to them, deep knowledge of any clandestine activity, had left their cruisers in the middle of major intersections and abandoned them there.)

Here is the list:

1. IF YOU ONLY WATCH ONE VIDEO, THIS MUST BE IT…

Queen and Spadina kettling: On Saturday, June 26th, at the corner of Queen and Spadina, the RCMP and other police forces formed several “kettles,” advising people to go in a different direction while trapping them and leaving them no choice but to stay in ever more ominous and tightening police squares. This is a video from the earlier part of the kettling (before the skies opened up and it started to pour.) This video is posted by Jason, “thedigitalliberty,” who attended the protests with his sister. It is a telling account of the desperation and innocence of the people who were caught in the Orwellian nightmare.

To see an example of police abuse of powers and of search and detention way beyond the security fence perimeter, watch this video of a mixed police team (appears to be a team of York Regional police and Toronto police). When questioned about his authority to search and turn away people from public streets under Canadian law, one officer quips, “This isn’t Canada, this is G20 Land” (at 3:59). At 1:37, an officer physically handles a pedestrian in a manner that would almost certainly result in an arrest, were it the civilian who grabbed the officer. The officers then keep moving in a line to push the peaceful pedestrian back, until he is caught between the police and the subway steps behind him. At 3:23, an officer claims, “This is our area.” The pedestrians keep insisting that they are not even near the “5 metres,” but relying even on this fallacious and police-declared rule does not get them anywhere.

3. PROTESTERS OR AGENTS PROVOCATEURS?

One of the first and repeated images that the public saw of the demonstrations in Toronto was of supposed Black Block members damaging property and setting police cars on fire. Yet it is a known fact that the police sometimes plant “agents provocateurs” among crowds of demonstrators. These are undercover police officers who act like a member of the public in demonstrations, but then may instigate or encourage violence, after which uniformed police make arrests of citizens who may have joined the undercover cops. The maker of this video examined some suspicious activity and appearances by alleged “Black Block” members, and complied a montage. Although there is no conclusive evidence, the question of which “protesters” and instigators were the police and which were real demonstrators is a valid one…one that may never be answer unless we have a full public inquiry.